Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Celeron vs Athalon

  1. May 28, 2003 #1
    Okay, so tonight I need to buy a new notebook computer before I leave the country tomorrow. I do not want to spend the money to get a machine with a Pentium 4 processor; so, I am looking at the situation of Celeron versus Athalon.

    I have heard that the Athalon can out-perform the Celeron, but it is less stable. Is this true?

    Here's a better question. If you had the option getting a free notebook computer with either a 1.8 GHz Celeron processor or a 1.6 GHz Athalon processor, which would you choose and why?

    Thanks dudes.

  2. jcsd
  3. May 28, 2003 #2
    Definately the 1.6 Athlon. Celerons are very watered down Pentiums. They are on the verge of being discontinued too. The Athlon T-bird, although outdated was AMD's primary processor. I repeat, don't get the Celeron.
    Last edited: May 28, 2003
  4. May 28, 2003 #3

    The celeron chip generally includes less cache, is a bottleneck for performance. Although I personally don't like the chip offerings AMD brings to the table, I would go with the Athalon in this case.

    Be warned, they do get much hotter than a celeron. So for a notebook...the celeron might be better, just not quite as good performance.
  5. May 28, 2003 #4
    Well I thought the breakdown was something like;

    Premium CPU = Athlon
    Budget CPU = Duron

    Premium CPU = Pentium
    Budget CPU = Celeron

    I think I would go with the 1.6GHz Athlon, all other specs being equivalent (RAM, size of HD, video memory, Drives, etc).
  6. May 28, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, with caveats: you aren't going to be overclocking a laptop.
  7. May 28, 2003 #6
    Go with the Athlon. Celeron is pure crap in every way. Since MS software is what you apparently have to use, you need a processor that can stay on top of the Window's Rot for at some reasonable amount of time. With a celeron, a month from know, it would take twenty minutes from the time you saw the windows splash screen from the time all of your start up programs were up and running and your desktop icons were loaded.
  8. May 29, 2003 #7
    I have had two Celeron CPUs a 566 and a 1.1Ghz, both Coppermines (P3 type).

    They have both been very stable, and the 1.1 is fast enough for everything that I do with it. It actually seems faster than my 1.5 P4 at work. I read that this is often true of the P3s and the lower P4s. Using SiSoft Sandra benchmarks, it beats a 1.4ghz P4.

    Even the 566 wasn't bad, but I do a lot of computer art and it couldn't quite keep up with the paint brush (cursor) motion. the 1.1ghz Celeron does great, even with just a Voodoo 4500 PCI graphics card it stays right with my brush placing the "paint" on the screen. I have used the same program with a 2.8 Ghz Pentium with an AGP graphics card, and my 1.1 Celeron seems just about as fast. Once the program is up, there is no real noticable difference, but man, you should see that 2.8 load that program, WOW, click and it is there!
    Last edited: May 29, 2003
  9. May 29, 2003 #8
    I've heard more bad things about AMD chips than I ever had about Celeron.

    What this boils down to is: what are you gonna be doing with the laptop? 3D games? Photo editing? Just typing things up?

    For moderate gaming, medium photo stuff, typing, etc, go with celeron. Intel chips and chipsets always work better with Microsoft.

    For more advanced stuff, like higher-end gaming and high-end photoediting, the AMD will be better.

    Once again, I echo the fact that the AMD runs MUCH hotter than a celeron, a big consideration for notebook users.

    If I had to choose between the two, celeron would be my choice. The clock speed you are looking at is fast enough for just about anything you would do.
  10. May 30, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Pretty much all of that is popular misconceptions and selective anecdotes or obsolete information.

    -Exacly what have you heard "bad" about the Athlon?

    -Athlons are 100% x86 compliant. There is no "work[ing] better with Microsoft."

    -SOME AMD chips run hotter than SOME Intel chips. There is a HUGE difference from one chip to another, so blanket statements like that don't work.

    Remember, there have been at least a dozen different athlon chips, a dozen different celerons, and half a dozen platforms for each. Blanket statements about either don't work very well.
  11. May 30, 2003 #10
    Indeed, Russ is correct. In most cases, blanket statements do not work, and this would be one of them. I will be more concise in future posts.

    I have dealt with an equal number of AMD/Intel over the past 4 years. In that time, I have noticed more errors and oddities out of an AMD machine than an Intel. Normally the problems are varied, from machine lockups on fresh installs (patched, of course) of the Windows OS to the machine running slowly for periods of time.

    I have a friend who builds computers, and he hates AMD processors. He says he has never received so many faulty chips, DOA. I wouldn't know from this standpoint, I'm more on the repair side with what I do.

    However, I know quite a few people who run AMD and are happy with it, zero problems.

    The point of all this is in MY OWN experience, I have seen Intel to be a superior chip. As far as the heating thing goes, this is to some point affected by the manufacturer's cooling design for its case, but once again, in MY OWN experience, and the input of those I know, AMD runs hotter than Intel in the majority of cases.
  12. May 30, 2003 #11
    Some Intel chips are designed to reduce their power use when they get too hot. the technique is known as "clock throttling." They say that the speed appears to drop as much as 50%. This design aids in cooling, especially in laptops, but is largely unnecessary in desktop models where more cooling can be built into the housing. Intel CPUs have a capability called "Advanced Dynamic Execution Thermal Monitoring Built-in Self Test (BIST)" and this coupled with a chipset designed to dynamically adjust the motherboard, cools the CPU. They also are fitted with a better heatspreader than AMD that takes the heat and disperses it over a larger area (this difference has been changed in more recent AMD models).

    Although AMD CPUs run hotter does not mean they are not a good Chip. Just maybe not as good for a laptop.
  13. May 30, 2003 #12
    I would choose the 1.6GHz Athlon. I would almost always choose the Athlon over a Celeron no matter what the clock speed. But I'd get the highest frequency Athlon that I could afford.
    Why? Because Athlons are better. For basically the same reasons that Greg, Boulderhead, Russ, and grady mentioned. There's not much comparison. If you want to compare C.P.U.s you'd have to compare the Celeron to the Duron; If you want to compare an Athlon, you need to compare it to a P3 or P4.
    If you must compare the two, I like the analogy of a Camero Z-28 (Athlon) to a Volkswagon Rabbit (Celeron).
  14. Jun 2, 2003 #13
    Re: Re: Celeron vs Athalon

    Both of these statements are true. The analogy is fair as well. You won't get the speed out of a Volkswagon Rabbit that you would out of a Camaro Z-28, but they are a good little solid car.

    Actually, if I was shopping for a new laptop, I would look for one with a mobile CPU (optimized for laptop models).
  15. Jun 2, 2003 #14
    Re: Re: Re: Celeron vs Athalon

    Are you talking about that new processor from Intel for notebooks? Does anyone know what significant differences that brings to the table? (I know this is a bit off topic) I got the impression it is more for buisness users...why?
  16. Jun 2, 2003 #15
    Some differences are that the CPU can detect when the notebook is operating on battery power and reduce its clock speed and core voltage to increase usable time (this is called speedstep), the Tjunction of the mobile is higher than that of the desktop CPU allowing for warmer operation without damage and reduces required cooling through fan and heat spreader capability, a feature called quickstart reduces CPU power to .5w when the CPU is not in use and bring it back on a keystroke.

    Mainly the differences are in power control and heat control.
  17. Jun 2, 2003 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually, you've mixed two different (though similar) features here. Both AMD and Intel have for a few years had the ability to dynamically change the clock speed of a chip while its running. Intel callse it "SpeedStep" and I think the AMD version is "PowerNow". Both were created for saving battery power in laptops, not for heat. However, my P3 laptop runs so hot, unless I have it sitting on a cool-pad, I always run it throttled back. This is done through SOFTWARE.

    Both (every chip from both for the past few years) also have throttling that is controlled in hardware and is indeed designed to keep a chip from burning itself up. When my laptop overheats it becomes unusably slow - but it doesn't crash so I can power it down myself and let it cool.

    Probably not. Intel has for years had moble versions of the p3 which are generally preferable to the desktop version because they use less power.

    The new Intel moble platform is called the Centrino and consists of a cpu, a motherboars, and a wireless card. The cpu is great - its the first cpu designed from the ground up to be a moble cpu. Its fast, cool, and uses very little power. And the motherboard has advanced power management as Artman mentioned.

    The big drawback of Centrino is the wireless card - its the obsolete 802.11b standard with a bandwidth of 11mb. The industry recently released 802.11a and 802.11g (I can't remember what a is, but g is 54mb).
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2003
  18. Jun 2, 2003 #17
    No, Russ, I knew that clock throttling was for desktop models, to protect from overheating. I see what you mean though, my previous post was misleading. The CPU models that he is comparing he didn't say whether they were mobile type or not.

    AMD has it now, but did they have clock throttling or a speedstep type technology in the Athlon 1.6? Intel has had it for several generations of CPU including the mobile Celerons.
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2003
  19. Jun 2, 2003 #18
    I thought that the way you tell a mobile Pentium was...

    to look for a small 'm' in the logo, as seen in the black area here;


    Does the Centrino use a different logo and, more to what I'm wondering, can you tell a mobile-type AMD CPU by looking at their logo? How do you tell?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  20. Jun 2, 2003 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Fair enough.
    The Athlon has had PowerNOW since the 850 "Athlon 4" in 2001. Lower voltage moble chips for both have been around much longer.
    Pretty simple. Centrino laptops have a Centrino logo. Laptops with athlon mobile chips have a PowerNOW logo.

    Btw guys, I'm not really this smart. Check http://www.geek.com/procspec/procspec.htm [Broken] out.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  21. Jun 2, 2003 #20
    Thanks Russ!

    My geek type site was outdated :smile:

    I'm going to bookmark that one.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook